| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Christchurch |
| Reference No | CA 144/04 |
| Hearing date | 14 Sep 2004 - 15 Sep 2004 (2 days) |
| Determination date | 29 November 2004 |
| Member | A Dumbleton |
| Representation | L Andersen ; D MacKinnon |
| Location | Christchurch |
| Parties | Lane v Fisher and Paykel Appliances Ltd |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious misconduct - Respondent's property found at applicant's premises by Police executing search warrant - When questioned by respondent applicant gave account of different ways he had obtained permission to borrow or keep property - Offered to resign to avoid prosecution but no final agreement reached - Subsequently refused to sign proposed statement as it required him to forfeit respondent's contributions to company superannuation scheme - Summarily dismissed - Knowing unauthorised possession of employer's property could afford grounds for summary dismissal - Contrary to respondent's code of conduct - Ample grounds for respondent to disbelieve applicant's claims he had either authorisation or innocent excuse for possession - Dismissal justified - If dismissal unjustified then contributory conduct would have deprived applicant of remedies - COSTS - Respondent chose not to pursue costs - No order for costs made - Maintenance engineer |
| Result | Application dismissed ; No order for costs |
| Statutes | ERA s124 |
| Cases Cited | Airline Stewards and Hostesses of NZ IUOW v Air NZ Ltd [1990] 3 NZILR 584 ; [1990] 3 NZLR 549;Drummond v Coca-Cola Bottlers NZ Ltd [1995] 2 ERNZ 229 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |